The whistleblower of the NSA recordings

[jimnyc]

I'm sure most are aware that the government didn't come out and admit they were recording and storing all of these telephone calls. An employee of the NSA, Edward Snowden, was responsible for the largest intelligence leak in NSA history.

I think we can all agree that what the NSA did was despicable. Certainly lines were crossed, but at the same time the current administration claims that Congress actually signed off on all of this crap (probably again without reading).

Similar to Bradley Manning before him - how much leaking of classified information is acceptable? Is it lawful to leak so much confidential information, even with good intent? If Congress did in fact sign off on this, which would technically make their actions 'legal' (at least until a court declares otherwise), are their consequences for these actions? Was there an alternative way of being a whistleblower as opposed to leaking to the world?

I have ZERO love for the NSA right now. My personal opinion is that they overstepped here and no way in hell should have been recording/storing conversations. But at the same time, leaking confidential documents is against the law. But at the same time again, how far does one turn a blind eye to such activity?

I think the circumstances are very similar to the Manning case. Someone releasing confidential information that they feel was illegal or not in the best interest of the Country. But will the NSA try to now silence Snowden (I think the damage is already done). Will they try and go after him as having committed a crime?

I know whistleblowers are afforded all kinds of protections, especially when illegal activity is concerned. But I think that's where it will hinge, as to whether these actions were illegal at the time. Technically, if Congress authorized the actions, then at the time they were not really illegal, only believed to be illegal. Could he have went to other authorities? Perhaps politicians or right to Congress so that he couldn't be ignored? In other words, were there any other avenues besides directly to the press?

And no, I'm not supporting either side. I've already stated I am WAY against the NSA on this one, but that doesn't mean that Snowden may not be "guilty" of leaking the confidential information. It will be interesting to follow this in it's entirety.


Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

The 29-year-old source behind the biggest intelligence leak in the NSA's history explains his motives, his uncertain future and why he never intended on hiding in the shadows

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.

Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations – the NSA.

In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance


An intelligence contractor who disclosed a top-secret National Security Agency electronic surveillance program surfaced in Hong Kong on Sunday and suggested he planned to defect to China.

Edward Snowden, a cyber security technical specialist with the intelligence contractor Booz, Allen, Hamilton, appeared in a video posted by the British newspaper the Guardian, which first disclosed the spying program and other top-secret details of U.S. government electronic intelligence and surveillance.

Asked by Guardian correspondent Glenn Greenwald about his presence in Hong Kong and whether he plans to defect to China, Snowden said the assumption that “China is an enemy of the United States” is wrong. “It’s not,” he said.

Despite conflicts between the U.S. and Chinese governments, the peoples of the two countries do not care, he said. “We’re not at war, in armed conflict … we’re the largest trading partners,” he said.

Hong Kong, a Chinese province that was once a British colony, has a long tradition of free speech and has an “unfiltered Internet,” Snowden said.

http://freebeacon.com/nsa-leaker-surfaces-in-hong-kong/

NSA Prism Whistleblower: Call for Edward Snowden's Extradition
One of America's top lawmakers has demanded the extradition of Edward Snowden, the whistleblower at the centre of the US National Security Agency (NSA) internet data tapping scandal.

Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, said that no country should grant asylum to Snowden, who is believed to be holed up in a Hong Kong hotel.

Snowden reportedly travelled to Hong Kong in mid-May from where he revealed top-secret documents over the NSA's covert Prism spy programme. The whistleblower, an ex-CIA adviser, did not "expect to see home again," according to an interview with The Guardian.

Although the Obama administration has been pushed on to the defensive by the revelations of the past few days, the White House has not officially commented.

King said: "If Edward Snowden did leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date.

"The United States must make it clear that no country should be granting this individual asylum. This is a matter of extraordinary consequence to American intelligence."

The US has extradition agreements with Hong Kong with an exception for political offences. According to the US-Hong Kong Extradition Treaty signed in 1997, Hong Kong has the "right of refusal when surrender implicates the defence, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy" of the People's Republic of China.

"I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions [but] I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant," said Snowden.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/476605/20130610/prism-nsa-edward-snowden-whistleblower-extradition-hongkong.htm

[revelarts]

Sybil Edmond . worked for the FBI.
She saw a lot of illegality and incompetence. (as well as very great efforts and hard workers).
Over a number of years She went through ALL of the right channels. she went to her supervisions, then the head of the FBI. she was fired.
She went to the FBI Government over site and review group they did a study. She went to congress, reported to them in secret.
She reported in secret to the 9-11 commission. they mentioned her in footnotes, none of her info made it into the report.
the oversite and congressional reports on her case came back saying that she was right - only a summery came out to the public- the congress rubbed it's chin. said hmm.
the democrats said when we get in power we'll hold hearings. they got in power, no hearings.
She went to the federal courts, still keeping all of her secrets. The executive, both Bush and Obama got the Judges they wanted appointed to case and the cases were dismissed or summarily ruled in favor of the gov't without full public trials. In one case she and her councils were not allowed in the court to hear the Gov'ts side of the case presented to the judge.

ALL legal means exhausted plus various pressures and threats throughout.

she finally began to speak more freely to alternative media. Then wrote a book, and still she let the FBI read it beforehand, but printed it anyway over there objections and has begun to tell the secrets she became aware of.

She started a Whistle blowers Group for other national security members. They have the LEAST in legal whistle blower protections of any gov't type.
As you might guess she's not optimistic about whislte blowers going though legal channels. Or frankly optimistic about whistle blowers going to some of the media because even there much of her story wasn't printed when she gave it, and it was confirmed by various other sources. she says the NYTimes refused to run the story among other national media orgs.
the guardian only ran Half of a 4 part series. reporters there say it's because they were contacted by people from the U.S. state dept and who requested it not run for "security" reasons. She says her 60 minutes interview was cut to pieces and only the FBI incompetents and her legal harassment and gagging were left in, none of the illegal and traitorous info.

the lid is on tight, it's d@mned if you do d@mned if you don't for many whistle blowers. many have been burned before their stories ever reach the media.
Some confidentially gave stories to media only to have the media sit on the stories because they are to hot.

Jim I know you want people to obey the law but in many of these cases there is no legal way expose the illegally but by breaking the secrecy laws.
The secrecy laws are -IN SOME CASES- just used as a gag to keep much greater corruption covered and make those that expose the corruption into the criminals.
whats the spirit of the secrecy laws. to protect the country, and preserve the rights spoken of in the constitution and preserve a just gov't..
the spirit of the law always trumps the letter and only people working in the midst of can make that determination, for better or worse.

[jimnyc]

^^ Well, there are legal ways, but past experience, as in the case you refer to, shows that it may not always lead to what one wants. But this shouldn't allow the next guy to break the law as a result. Well, one certainly CAN do so if they feel they have no alternative, but they must understand that it can have consequences. I'm not sure we should set precedent that would allow others in the future to release confidential information, or security information, without consequences, even if the information is as astonishing as this was.

I think they should still follow the appropriate channels and methods, and of course document. Then "maybe" if it gets ignored or hidden, I could understand more. If I were a juror and saw that someone like this went to every legal avenue and was denied at each step, I might have more support for them. But if they simply read/found something they didn't like, thought it was wrong, and immediately went to the press, then I don't feel to awfully sorry, even though I'm glad the information is out there.

When this gent set out to release the info, he knew he was breaking the law and looking for trouble. I applaud his intent, but I would still push for punishment (based on the facts thus far).

[revelarts]

^^ Well, there are legal ways, but past experience, as in the case you refer to, shows that it may not always lead to what one wants. But this shouldn't allow the next guy to break the law as a result. Well, one certainly CAN do so if they feel they have no alternative, but they must understand that it can have consequences. I'm not sure we should set precedent that would allow others in the future to release confidential information, or security information, without consequences, even if the information is as astonishing as this was.

I think they should still follow the appropriate channels and methods, and of course document. Then "maybe" if it gets ignored or hidden, I could understand more. If I were a juror and saw that someone like this went to every legal avenue and was denied at each step, I might have more support for them. But if they simply read/found something they didn't like, thought it was wrong, and immediately went to the press, then I don't feel to awfully sorry, even though I'm glad the information is out there.

When this gent set out to release the info, he knew he was breaking the law and looking for trouble. I applaud his intent, but I would still push for punishment (based on the facts thus far).

I understand your position.
However i disagree.
one of the reason for a Jury trial is to render justice. The law is a tool for justice. just a tool. If a man breaks a window to save a suffocating/overheating baby I'm not going to sit on a jury and fine this guy for damages to the car.
busting out a window is "against the law". But the reason it was done was to save a life.
Charges COMPLETLY dismissed IMO.
if he did it to steal an Iphone. he gets the book thrown at him.
That's justice IMO.
But the law hasn't changed, most everyone STILL get that it's illegal to bust car windows. no feels like , "OK so now have a RIGHT to bust car windows for any ol reason." no.
There's no anarchy in the streets after the life saver gets off on the charges. Instead for most there's a collective nod of the head to the jury of "that's right".

the law is tool of justice not a god, that must be enforced at all time in every situation. Or people will get the wrong idea.
The motives and outcomes are important and in some cases more important than the law.

- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Oliver Wendel Holmes, Horning v DC 254 US 35,138 (1920)
"The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."

- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

[aboutime]

This Whistleblower has not done anything more than the OBAMA administration has done, after releasing the details of the OBL capture, killing, and all of the Information....that COULD HAVE BEEN used to capture, or kill more Terrorists.

Obama and Company are in a really hard place now. If they go after this guy for DISCLOSURE....Which nobody really knows exactly, what it is he has disclosed...since Obama did the same. They can't legally make anything Public...if they instantly declare it CLASSIFIED.

I fully expect the Obama admin. to go after this man. He will then become a victim of the Ignorance, Hatred, and Stupidity this nation voted for TWICE.

[Drummond]

This Whistleblower has not done anything more than the OBAMA administration has done, after releasing the details of the OBL capture, killing, and all of the Information....that COULD HAVE BEEN used to capture, or kill more Terrorists.

Obama and Company are in a really hard place now. If they go after this guy for DISCLOSURE....Which nobody really knows exactly, what it is he has disclosed...since Obama did the same. They can't legally make anything Public...if they instantly declare it CLASSIFIED.

I fully expect the Obama admin. to go after this man. He will then become a victim of the Ignorance, Hatred, and Stupidity this nation voted for TWICE.

I don't doubt that they'll go after him for a second. There is absolutely no way that Obama won't want him punished.

See ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/whistleblower-edward-snowden-told-he-faces-extradition-from-hong-kong-back-to-us-over-nsa-prism-revelations-8651375.html


A senior figure in Hong Kong law enforcement has suggested NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden should leave the city.

Regina Ip, a pro-Beijing legislator who was previously the city’s top security official, said Hong Kong was “obliged to comply with the terms of agreements” with the US government, which included the extradition of fugitives.

She added that, after he leaked the largest amount of classified information in the history of the US National Security Agency, she strongly recommends Snowden depart the semi-autonomous Chinese territory.

The article goes on to suggest that the extradition might not happen soon ... though this seems more guesswork than anything else.

I'd like to suggest something, though.

The British 'Guardian' newspaper has played a prominent role in all of this, it seems. Now .. I ask WHY it has.

The Guardian is a Left wing publication. In the past, during a previous US Presidential election, they tried to get their British readers to 'cold call' residents in Clark County, then a 'swing State', in the hope of getting votes there turned to pro-Dem ones.

More recently, they were a chosen media outlet of Julian Assange, of 'WikiLeaks' fame. A great deal of Assange's material was handed over to the Guardian. Indeed .. Assange complained that the Guardian exceeded their agreed dissemination-extent !! See ...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-blames-231464


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lashed out at U.K. newspaper The Guardian, blaming it for last week's release of some 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, complete with the names of thousands of U.S. informants living in oppressive regimes.

"The Guardian was negligent in its behavior," Assange said, speaking via satellite to Berlin's Medienwoche conference. "The Guardian newspaper revealed the entire encryption password, including the part they were specifically told not to write down. The individual concerned is The Guardian's investigations editor."

I suggest that the Guardian has its own agenda, one NOT favourable to US interests. What the Guardian gets out of this is to help damage America's standing in the world. Indeed ... we've had our own backlash here, with it being suggested that Britain's GCHQ establishment might've been using American help to spy on UK citizens. William Hague has had to address this in Parliament today ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22848731


.... However, it was clear that he intended to say nothing at all about Prism - including even using its name. Nor did he intend to spell out in ways which any member of the public could understand when their emails or other social media traffic could be monitored.

Instead, Mr Hague made a number of general points again and again:

Firstly, that Britain should be proud of the security services which had protected us from numerous plots.

Secondly, that we had "one of the strongest system of checks and balances anywhere in the world", which involved ministers signing warrants before intercepts can take place, independent oversight of their decisions by the Intelligence Services Commissioner, and parliamentary accountability via the all party Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The ISC was, he said, the proper place to ask more detailed questions.

Thirdly, our current laws do not allow for "indiscriminate trawling" of data but only allow for "necessary, proportionate, targeted" searches.

Fourthly, the suggestion that GCHQ had sought to bypass the law by using intelligence gathered abroad was "baseless".

The clear hint was that ministers had approved the use of any intelligence gathered by the American National security Agency's Prism programme.

There was also a hint that the period leading up to the Olympics had been a time when such co-operation had been significant.

However, Mr Hague dodged shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander's invitation to confirm that all such data was approved by ministerial warrants.

I can't give an answer as categorical as he would like, the foreign secretary said, but it would be wrong to say this would be done without ministerial oversight. We are left to wonder what that really means.

Most of the House of Commons seemed reassured. Former Labour foreign and home secretaries backed the security services and the government. Many MPs wanted to know if the security services might not need more powers, rather than fewer.

However, if you were hoping for clear or detailed answers, you did not get them.

This from the Guardian's 'Letters' page ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/orwell-fears-refracted-nsa-prism?INTCMP=SRCH


After we'd fondly imagined that the free, open and accountable society was merely being gradually encroached on by military and commercial interests, the Guardian revelations in recent days about the actions of the US National Security Agency seem to have shocked us awake to find that we are already living within a mature, widely embedded Orwellian nightmare (Pressure on government over secret intelligence gathering, 8 June).

If GCHQ has used the Prism software to spy on us at the US's behest, let's not accept its weasel words about operating under a "legal and policy framework" – whose laws, whose policies? – but rather name it and deal with it for what it is: institutional treachery. Secondly, if internet companies are using the supply of their popular goods and services as a cover for spying on their customers, we should consider whether they should have a right to operate here. Thirdly, it should be a priority to investigate rigorously how far this mindset of US political paranoia has spread among UK national institutions – there are rumours, for example, that at least one of our research councils has had its research programme on security directly influenced by US security interests. Finally, the US must be challenged at a political level about the concept of extra-territoriality which supports all these deeply disturbing developments in the UK.

GCHQ's obtaining US-gathered information about UK communications raises two key legal issues. First, GCHQ has sidestepped the procedures and safeguards laid down by the UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa). Ripa was enacted to ensure that clandestine state access to private communications would be "in accordance with the law" and so compliant with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. UK citizens' data has effectively been subjected to a form of extraordinary rendition. That cannot possibly be lawful. The UK government must make clear that the practice will stop immediately and that illegally obtained data will be deleted. Second, EU data protection legislation is undergoing reform, with a draft regulation now under scrutiny in the parliament. The sheer enormity of the US authorities' collection of foreign data, including data of EU users held by US-based cloud and communications providers, reveals just how little protection we get from the EU's current "safe harbour" approach to overseas data transfers. It also creates intolerable uncertainty for businesses operating comms and cloud services in the EU. The parliament and commission should urgently build into the new framework robust protection for the privacy of EU citizens' data.

In the week that the Guardian revealed the global scale of US surveillance over private communications ('We hack everyone everywhere. It's what we do every day', 8 June), economic and political leaders were meeting under the auspices of Bilderberg for "private" discussions from which the public are rigorously excluded (Tory MP criticises Cameron over Bilderberg meeting, 8 June).

So national "security" requires government to know what the people are saying to one another, but the latter must respect the "privacy" of the former? It is the fact that political leaders are meeting with private business interests that makes this a serious matter of public interest. It beggars belief that Cameron, Osborne, Balls and co believe this claim to their "privacy" can be taken seriously.

[aboutime]

I don't doubt that they'll go after him for a second. There is absolutely no way that Obama won't want him punished.

See ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/whistleblower-edward-snowden-told-he-faces-extradition-from-hong-kong-back-to-us-over-nsa-prism-revelations-8651375.html



The article goes on to suggest that the extradition might not happen soon ... though this seems more guesswork than anything else.

I'd like to suggest something, though.

The British 'Guardian' newspaper has played a prominent role in all of this, it seems. Now .. I ask WHY it has.

The Guardian is a Left wing publication. In the past, during a previous US Presidential election, they tried to get their British readers to 'cold call' residents in Clark County, then a 'swing State', in the hope of getting votes there turned to pro-Dem ones.

More recently, they were a chosen media outlet of Julian Assange, of 'WikiLeaks' fame. A great deal of Assange's material was handed over to the Guardian. Indeed .. Assange complained that the Guardian exceeded their agreed dissemination-extent !! See ...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-blames-231464



I suggest that the Guardian has its own agenda, one NOT favourable to US interests. What the Guardian gets out of this is to help damage America's standing in the world. Indeed ... we've had our own backlash here, with it being suggested that Britain's GCHQ establishment might've been using American help to spy on UK citizens. William Hague has had to address this in Parliament today ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22848731



This from the Guardian's 'Letters' page ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/orwell-fears-refracted-nsa-prism?INTCMP=SRCH




Sir Drummond. Unfortunately for Great Britain. Large numbers of Thinking, Independent, Responsible Americans know full well....The Guardian is nearly equal in popularity there, as our DemocratUnderground, and Moveon.org Hate/Ignorance/Stupidity/Liberal Cesspools of Wannabe Journalism Washouts.
The world has become a massive Sewer of challenged mentalities that can only be corrected with Government Paid LOBOTOMIES.

[red state]

These "whistle blowers" possibly went along with some of the stuff or was simply not brave enough to follow the letter of the LAW. IF they didn't go along with it and immediately made their info known to their superiors with no results, they should have put her foot down right then and there and took drastic measures to do the right thing. If you've sworn to uphold the law or Constitution, you should be against illegal activity from the get go. As terrible as it may make your life, you have a duty to expose the slime. I'd like to think that I'd resign, give the (on the record) reasons for my resignation and then file charges or take the case to the public. BOTTOM LINE. It takes a great deal of character and that is why I respect ALL who come forward with TRUTH.

SCENARIO:

Bad Soldier does something wrong while in a combat situation (use your imagination).

CO tells everyone to mind their business (covers it up).

Good soldier can't take it anymore (after going to higher authorities with no resolve).

Finally, after all else has failed to achieve justice, Good Soldier is forced to spill the beans.

Good Soldier gets discharged or even CHARGED for leaking 'military info' that ordered him to "mind their business".

As a result, a Good Soldier has a ruined career and possible jail time but at least an "out of order" order was brought to the light.

Hopefully, but not likely, Bad Soldier + all the CO's with a hand in the cover-up get the axe for their wrong doings.

Bottom line:
an [out of order] ORDER is not an order to be followed and a good man will do the RIGHT thing regardless of the consequences.
I know those who have and WILL do the RIGHT thing no matter what. I count myself within that same group on the RIGHT all else is WRONG/LEFT.

[jimnyc]

These "whistle blowers" possibly went along with some of the stuff or was simply not brave enough to follow the letter of the LAW. IF they didn't go along with it and immediately made their info known to their superiors with no results, they should have put her foot down right then and there and took drastic measures to do the right thing. If you've sworn to uphold the law or Constitution, you should be against illegal activity from the get go. As terrible as it may make your life, you have a duty to expose the slime. I'd like to think that I'd resign, give the (on the record) reasons for my resignation and then file charges or take the case to the public. BOTTOM LINE. It takes a great deal of character and that is why I respect ALL who come forward with TRUTH.

SCENARIO:

Bad Soldier does something wrong while in a combat situation (use your imagination).

CO tells everyone to mind their business (covers it up).

Good soldier can't take it anymore (after going to higher authorities with no resolve).

Finally, after all else has failed to achieve justice, Good Soldier is forced to spill the beans

This is where my problem with this guy falls. He DIDN'T try the other avenues prior to leaking the information. There are investigative groups for specifically these types of things, and of course there are security committee's in congress. And while many think he had a duty to come forward, he also had a duty to defend the information he was sworn to protect as a member of the CIA/NSA. I have no love for this group and I'm glad this overreach was exposed. But I also think he could have at least tried to do things correctly before divulging national security information. I can think of a LOT of members on the (R) or independent side that would LOVE to go all over Obama and the Democrats for this, and I'm not convinced going that route wouldn't have worked. But worst case scenario, he could have left a paper trail of attempts to do things the legal way. Instead he went directly to the illegal way and hopped out of the country. If they find a way to extradite him, this will only serve to hurt him in the long run.

[aboutime]

These "whistle blowers" possibly went along with some of the stuff or was simply not brave enough to follow the letter of the LAW. IF they didn't go along with it and immediately made their info known to their superiors with no results, they should have put her foot down right then and there and took drastic measures to do the right thing. If you've sworn to uphold the law or Constitution, you should be against illegal activity from the get go. As terrible as it may make your life, you have a duty to expose the slime. I'd like to think that I'd resign, give the (on the record) reasons for my resignation and then file charges or take the case to the public. BOTTOM LINE. It takes a great deal of character and that is why I respect ALL who come forward with TRUTH.

SCENARIO:

Bad Soldier does something wrong while in a combat situation (use your imagination).

CO tells everyone to mind their business (covers it up).

Good soldier can't take it anymore (after going to higher authorities with no resolve).

Finally, after all else has failed to achieve justice, Good Soldier is forced to spill the beans.

Good Soldier gets discharged or even CHARGED for leaking 'military info' that ordered him to "mind their business".

As a result, a Good Soldier has a ruined career and possible jail time but at least an "out of order" order was brought to the light.

Hopefully, but not likely, Bad Soldier + all the CO's with a hand in the cover-up get the axe for their wrong doings.

Bottom line:
an [out of order] ORDER is not an order to be followed and a good man will do the RIGHT thing regardless of the consequences.
I know those who have and WILL do the RIGHT thing no matter what. I count myself within that same group on the RIGHT all else is WRONG/LEFT.



It seems. Something None of us have taken into account, with regard to this Whistleblower is....Honor, Integrity, Personal Responsibility, and even Patriotism based on Principles, Justice, and Love of Country.
Look at how he has sacrificed HIS ENTIRE LIFE by Letting the Cat out of the bag.
Obviously. He has seen, heard, and read information that disturbed him to his core.
Not defending him but...Whether anyone wants to believe me or not.
I do know what he is feeling, and how disturbing it can be. Having access to information you have been sworn
never to repeat, or share with anyone else.

Ask any person in the Military today, no matter what branch they may be in. If they have seen, heard, or read things
that disturb them, and possibly disagree with, if not totally goes against their personal principles. Yet...they are sworn by an Oath, to never disclose what they have been told to NEVER disclose.

Finally. I believe Ben Franklin said it best. "If you will give up Liberty for more Security. You will lose both!"

[cadet]

I'm not a big fan of calling him a whistleblower. I'd rather call him a hero.

[jimnyc]

I'm not a big fan of calling him a whistleblower. I'd rather call him a hero.

To an extent, but also one who went against his sworn oath and went out of his way to break the law and release national security info without even trying to go through any of the available avenues first. Even heroes need to follow the rule of law. I'm not against the info being out there. Like I said, I'm glad it got released. But I disagree with immediately breaking the law. Hell, he could have made 90 copies of it and sent it to 90 different politicians, in addition to post dated letters and such. There would have been several ways to guarantee the information was released should no one listen or should something 'happen to him'. I really don't see much reason why a reasonable attempt to do things the right way wasn't tried first. That's his choice though, and I AM glad it's out there, but I won't have sympathy for his plight as he chose that direction himself.

[Robert A Whit]

To an extent, but also one who went against his sworn oath and went out of his way to break the law and release national security info without even trying to go through any of the available avenues first. Even heroes need to follow the rule of law. I'm not against the info being out there. Like I said, I'm glad it got released. But I disagree with immediately breaking the law. Hell, he could have made 90 copies of it and sent it to 90 different politicians, in addition to post dated letters and such. There would have been several ways to guarantee the information was released should no one listen or should something 'happen to him'. I really don't see much reason why a reasonable attempt to do things the right way wasn't tried first. That's his choice though, and I AM glad it's out there, but I won't have sympathy for his plight as he chose that direction himself.

I have not learned anything new. This was done the same way during Bush. I understood it then.

As to the guy handing over classified stuff, he will be prosecuted upon capture.

[cadet]

To an extent, but also one who went against his sworn oath and went out of his way to break the law and release national security info without even trying to go through any of the available avenues first. Even heroes need to follow the rule of law. I'm not against the info being out there. Like I said, I'm glad it got released. But I disagree with immediately breaking the law. Hell, he could have made 90 copies of it and sent it to 90 different politicians, in addition to post dated letters and such. There would have been several ways to guarantee the information was released should no one listen or should something 'happen to him'. I really don't see much reason why a reasonable attempt to do things the right way wasn't tried first. That's his choice though, and I AM glad it's out there, but I won't have sympathy for his plight as he chose that direction himself.

Any man who sacrifices himself for the people is a hero in my book.

[revelarts]

I have not learned anything new. This was done the same way during Bush. I understood it then.


Robert if you haven't learned anything new in the past few days just here on this forum your not paying attention.
or you just don't want to know.

[jimnyc]

Any man who sacrifices himself for the people is a hero in my book.

He very likely could have accomplished the same by taking legal routes, but I'll guess we'll never know. But a "hero" for breaking the law and breaking his oath, on work that was approved by Congress? I'll say he's got a set of nads for sure, but he's hardly a hero, IMO. He took the easy way of publishing and then hiding, when he could have fought things the right way. But in the end, "I" will be glad that this information about what Congress approved is out there for all to see, hopefully there will be drastic changes as a result. And in the end, I think this guy will live on the run or be prosecuted.

[red state]

About Time Wrote: "It seems. Something None of us have taken into account, with regard to this Whistleblower is....Honor, Integrity, Personal Responsibility, and even Patriotism based on Principles, Justice, and Love of Country."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

I beg to differ old friend....I pretty much stressed within my initial comment. I even stated that it has everything to do with one's character (IF) they had tried other avenues and failed to do so "legally". I'm not much for the laws (especially stupid laws where they tell me that I can or can't do this or that...while the Constitution states otherwise) and am more interested in Right and Wrong. As I said, these "heroes"....and I'll call them heroes, are willing to give up EVERYTHING and although I haven't dug into the details for this particular topic, I do know that "whistleblower" is a very loose term (especially when dealing with other topics such as the Benghazi cover up). These aren't whistle blowers....these are witnesses to an unjust, corrupt-to-the-core gov. and they need to be heard. In regard to this particular thread....I started my comment with a very big word [IF] but there is no if, ands or "butts" about doing the right thing and exposing corruption. I've had to sign my name off to secrecy with agencies I've been a part of but that does not bind me (nor did it) to being a part of something corrupt or keeping my yap shut (IF) it harms others or (as with the topic) aids America's enemies. Bottom Line.....

[aboutime]

About Time Wrote: "It seems. Something None of us have taken into account, with regard to this Whistleblower is....Honor, Integrity, Personal Responsibility, and even Patriotism based on Principles, Justice, and Love of Country."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

I beg to differ old friend....I pretty much stressed within my initial comment. I even stated that it has everything to do with one's character (IF) they had tried other avenues and failed to do so "legally". I'm not much for the laws (especially stupid laws where they tell me that I can or can't do this or that...while the Constitution states otherwise) and am more interested in Right and Wrong. As I said, these "heroes"....and I'll call them heroes, are willing to give up EVERYTHING and although I haven't dug into the details for this particular topic, I do know that "whistleblower" is a very loose term (especially when dealing with other topics such as the Benghazi cover up). These aren't whistle blowers....these are witnesses to an unjust, corrupt-to-the-core gov. and they need to be heard. In regard to this particular thread....I started my comment with a very big word [IF] but there is no if, ands or "butts" about doing the right thing and exposing corruption. I've had to sign my name off to secrecy with agencies I've been a part of but that does not bind me (nor did it) to being a part of something corrupt or keeping my yap shut (IF) it harms others or (as with the topic) aids America's enemies. Bottom Line.....


I know exactly what you mean. However. I also know the feelings he must have had before deciding to do what he did.
He obviously reached a point where....THERE WAS NO-ONE in his chain-of-command he thought he could TRUST. So, he couldn't take it anywhere else. Which is being proven as we speak..with his bosses, Congress, Obama, Holder, and people he worked with ALL SPEAKING OUT...Saying "HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED".
If everyone you knew, and worked with held such contempt for you. Who...would you trust???

[jimnyc]

although I haven't dug into the details for this particular topic

Details are important for informed opinions! Or maybe not. :)

[jimnyc]

I know exactly what you mean. However. I also know the feelings he must have had before deciding to do what he did.
He obviously reached a point where....THERE WAS NO-ONE in his chain-of-command he thought he could TRUST. So, he couldn't take it anywhere else. Which is being proven as we speak..with his bosses, Congress, Obama, Holder, and people he worked with ALL SPEAKING OUT...Saying "HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED".
If everyone you knew, and worked with held such contempt for you. Who...would you trust???

I don't think all of Congress is exactly in bed with the Obama administration and Holder. That's one of the rare good things about Congressional members hating one another, there will never be a shortage of committees or members that would LOVE information to screw the "other side".

[aboutime]

I don't think all of Congress is exactly in bed with the Obama administration and Holder. That's one of the rare good things about Congressional members hating one another, there will never be a shortage of committees or members that would LOVE information to screw the "other side".


Agreed. And, even with that said Jim. It still doesn't change my general, overall impression, or opinions about Politicians.

I simply DO NOT TRUST ANY OF THEM.

The only reason any of us have seen them fight...Honestly; was because of their political career....hanging in the balance.
As for YOU and ME..."WE THE PEOPLE".
We must never forget. The only time politicians need US is.....just before we go to the Polls.
After that. WE ARE ON OUR OWN.

[red state]

I'll agree that we'll never know but I am almost certain that this guy would have been swept under the rug had he gone through the proper channels. He would have also given them ample time to "come up with a solution" had he given them warning. I doubt very seriously that this guy could have had the same success in burning those with less than admirable conduct [unlike others here with more faith in this regime and those placed in power within this regime]. They are crooked and as with the untouchables or the gang squads of California back in the late 40's and 50's....sometimes you've got to hit them just as hard and in their style if you want justice. As for high tailing it; It is likely that if such a person had something deep and dangerous tied to B.O. and his bunch, shouting out that you have some dirt via the legal way and through proper channels could get you killed. Look, if I'm gonna get into it with someone who I KNOW to be a real murderous, crooked S.O.B. I'd be KraZy to fire a warning shot....it is best to go for center mass and face the consequences (THE LAW) later. I doubt this guy has anything that dangerous or deep on this regime besides what many of us already know but (IF) a guy did have a really nasty scoop of facts on these dangerous and corrupt bunch....it may be smarter to get it out and get out of dodge. As said earlier....WE"LL NEVER KNOW.

[red state]

I know exactly what you mean. However. I also know the feelings he must have had before deciding to do what he did.
He obviously reached a point where....THERE WAS NO-ONE in his chain-of-command he thought he could TRUST. So, he couldn't take it anywhere else. Which is being proven as we speak..with his bosses, Congress, Obama, Holder, and people he worked with ALL SPEAKING OUT...Saying "HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED".
If everyone you knew, and worked with held such contempt for you. Who...would you trust???


Now we'er back on the same page....I totally agree. Just look at what B.O. said regarding homosexuality within the DOJ. It isn't enough for you to remain silent and you damn well better keep you opinion or religious feelings out of it.....B.O. and Holder said that you better fall in line and praise homosexuality (OR ELSE). I'm sure this guy knew that he had no chain of command to speak with. This is why I have said that it is better to resign a position if you see the black cloud coming. There's no way that I could serve the military or anything with the National gov. hand in power right now but I respect those who stand firm and I respect those who are willing to sacrifice ALL. Hero or not, this guy has done US a favor.

[red state]

Details are important for informed opinions! Or maybe not. :)
Smiley faces aside; details are not as important when we've already started with "possibilities" and speaking of CHARACTER. One can say that he's a hero or patriot or one can simply call him "illegal". If my opinions are not as informed or interesting as you'd prefer, I'll give way to the more enlightened among us but opinions of all sorts are interesting to me....now (IF) we were to dabble in facts, that is another thing altogether and I'd agree with you 100%..

[BillyBob]

A citizen works for a top government agency and sees things which are likely illegal, he reports them to the media then gets accused of being a traitor. Last time I checked, the penalty for that offense was execution.

So now, any time a citizen comes forward to report on illegal government activity he will be executed for his patriotism. Sounds like your standard totalitarian regime to me.

[revelarts]

I don't think all of Congress is exactly in bed with the Obama administration and Holder. That's one of the rare good things about Congressional members hating one another, there will never be a shortage of committees or members that would LOVE information to screw the "other side".

you know when there are 2 crime families that run a city there's some info ,if it comes out, that will let them dig into to other. But some things that will dig into them both if it comes out.

Those things they tend to stick together on.

Someone like Ron Paul was shut out because he wasn't playing the larger game of big gov't,
version R or version D

[red states rule]

you know when there are 2 crime families that run a city there's some info ,if it comes out, that will let them dig into to other. But some things that will dig into them both if it comes out.

Those things they tend to stick together on.

Someone like Ron Paul was shut out because he wasn't playing the larger game of big gov't,
version R or version D

Ron Paul was shut out (if he was shit out) is because he is a NUT. Anyone who has the stupidity to publicly bellow Amercia deserved 9/11 needs 24 hour adult supervision and serious medication

[jimnyc]

you know when there are 2 crime families that run a city there's some info ,if it comes out, that will let them dig into to other. But some things that will dig into them both if it comes out.

Those things they tend to stick together on.

Someone like Ron Paul was shut out because he wasn't playing the larger game of big gov't,
version R or version D

At least we both agree that the shitheads in Washington are like the mafioso!

Let me give another example though - look at the heat that Hillary and Obama are taking over the Inspector General investigations, mainly over Benghazi, but more to follow. They FORCE these nitwits to come testify, or try very hard. Some take the 5th, some lie, some are truthful. But that's on things that are unexplained. What we have here CAN be explained. It was authorized by Congress and there is now much proof from Snowden. We know it was initiated within this Congress and this administration. I think the chances of this being looked at appropriately in Congress or by special investigators was very high. This guy obviously knew what he was doing. He could easily have done like Assange, simply set it up for full release if these people didn't listen to him. At LEAST give it a chance, not run and hand out this security information to another country and run to yet another country himself. Hell, he could have done what I'm saying AND be hidden for his safety. I can think of 100 different ways he could have done this without releasing it to the world. And like I said earlier, IF he did this, and they denied him every single step of the way and further tried to hide it, then he would have my support for his actions, although they would still be illegal. But he CHOSE to ignore any possible other route and went immediately to the illegal route. Cool, so the info bypassed security committees and such, and the entire world sees it mere days after he collects it, but then he must live with the consequences of his actions.

If me, I would have had a team of lawyers and copies with like 100 friends. I would have made this abundantly clear to anyone I was going to discuss this with, whether congressional or investigators. God forbid something happened, the world would have known my morning anyway.

[revelarts]

At least we both agree that the shitheads in Washington are like the mafioso!

Let me give another example though - look at the heat that Hillary and Obama are taking over the Inspector General investigations, mainly over Benghazi, but more to follow. They FORCE these nitwits to come testify, or try very hard. Some take the 5th, some lie, some are truthful. But that's on things that are unexplained. What we have here CAN be explained. It was authorized by Congress and there is now much proof from Snowden. We know it was initiated within this Congress and this administration. I think the chances of this being looked at appropriately in Congress or by special investigators was very high. This guy obviously knew what he was doing. He could easily have done like Assange, simply set it up for full release if these people didn't listen to him. At LEAST give it a chance, not run and hand out this security information to another country and run to yet another country himself. Hell, he could have done what I'm saying AND be hidden for his safety. I can think of 100 different ways he could have done this without releasing it to the world. And like I said earlier, IF he did this, and they denied him every single step of the way and further tried to hide it, then he would have my support for his actions, although they would still be illegal. But he CHOSE to ignore any possible other route and went immediately to the illegal route. Cool, so the info bypassed security committees and such, and the entire world sees it mere days after he collects it, but then he must live with the consequences of his actions.

If me, I would have had a team of lawyers and copies with like 100 friends. I would have made this abundantly clear to anyone I was going to discuss this with, whether congressional or investigators. God forbid something happened, the world would have known my morning anyway.

Ok, that's fine, that's your way .
but i have to ask.
do you have a team of lawyers you can pay?
and would 100 friends even want it.
and giving it to 100 friends would be against the law too wouldn't it.
they'd be obliged to turn you in. ANYONE you talk to would be breaking your secrecy agreement.

and isn't this guy working for a contractor? WHat's the proper channel for a contractor? the head of the agency that did the hiring? His bosses?
you mention the congress. that good. but he's not really under them job wise, so not sure how that works.
i don't know

[jimnyc]

Ok, that's fine, that's your way .
but i have to ask.
do you have a team of lawyers you can pay?
and would 100 friends even want it.
and giving it to 100 friends would be against the law too wouldn't it.
they'd be obliged to turn you in. ANYONE you talk to would be breaking your secrecy agreement.

and isn't this guy working for a contractor? WHat's the proper channel for a contractor? the head of the agency that did the hiring? His bosses?
you mention the congress. that good. but he's not really under them job wise, so not sure how that works.
i don't know

Most lawyers would love to have a chance to have their names behind a major issue like this. Could I afford it? Nope. But I'm confident I could find at minimum a handful that would take this - and the ACLU would likely PAY ME to let them handle it!

Yes, you are correct, sharing it with friends would also be illegal. It would probably be wise to do like Assange did, which is encrypt it. Then maybe have the lawyers own the key to unlock. My point is that there would have been TONS of ways to go about this without going directly to the illegal way, and passing it off to a foreign newspaper for dissemination.

He was a contractor and former employee of the CIA. I don't know the specifics to be heard either - but I think a simple call/letter to the senate intelligence committee, other leading members, inspectors... I think they would have jumped at the chance to go over this before it hits every newspaper and internet page in the world. He bailed for HK. He could have done the same and then made his "demands" to be heard from there, while hidden. But let's be realistic, his defense certainly can't be that he was a contractor, and had no alternative but this route. He had MANY alternatives but CHOSE this one. We will never know now what would have happened if he chose to go through the appropriate channels.

[red state]

How do we really know if Snowden went to the "proper" channels or not before turning it over to the media. As far as we know he first blew the whistle to the Washington Post, the guys who gladly broke the Watergate story (but has a big problem in reporting all the scandals since 2009). My opinion.....I don't believe he had any proper or honorable "CHANNEL". Just like the IRS scandal; had an IRS employee went through the proper channels, they would have PROMPTLY been dismissed, threatened or 'found' dead. After the Washington Post refused to publish his full leak he turned to The Guardian. However, it was the Washington Post who ended up turning the story over to United States officials and publishing only 4 of the PRISM slides. My question is: did the guy specifically say that he never went to any "chiefs"?



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/nsa-leaker-shopped-his-story-around.html

[Despite our previous dispute about publishing the PRISM document in full, Snowden said he did not intend to release a pile of unedited documents upon the world. “I don’t desire to enable the Bradley Manning argument that these were released recklessly and unreviewed,” he said. He also said within the interview that: "There’s no saving me.]


Bottom Line: When a "Whistle Blower" reveals government secrets, we can classify that individual’s actions as “treasonous” or “patriotic”. If the secrets in question would undoubtedly aid the enemy, and provide very little benefit to the American public or endanger covert operations, I classify those actions as “treasonous”. It the "whistle blower" simply blows the lid off of wrong doings and aid We The People in putting into light a very biased and tyranical gov.....that guy is not just a whistle blower....he's a patriotic hero in my book (especially if he willingly and knowingly sacrificed his life....and he probably has....one way or another).



I keep hearing: "(IF) he did this, and they threatened him or tried to hide what he knew, then he'd have my support" OR "We'll never know what would have happened (IF) Snowden had chosen to go through the appropriate channels". I say again....WHAT appropriate or honorable channels?! Gen. Petraeous, then CIA-Director David Petraeus, objected to the lies that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice spread for five days after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi. He wanted more facts before publicly releasing the lies that were directed to the public, including previous warnings from the CIA about plans that they had heard regarding a possible attack upon U.S. Embassies for the date of 9-11. So, here we see someone who was not going to go along with any Benghazi cover up and silly claims that it was a video which caused the murder of Americans at the Libyan Emabassy. He should have been a hero and gave this info out publicly to a Republican candidate to use but for the most part, it was swept under the rug...at least it was not a VERY HOT topic in the news during the elections. So, Petraeus got what he deserved for trusting this regime and being a part of it by having a scandal publicized about he and his "girlfriend". Some here may wonder what would have happened to this guy but I have no doubts, whatsoever. This is how the B.O. regime works....and I am certain that Snowden would face this type of "leadership" or death had he made his intentions known. The guy sounds like a chess player to me. Yep...he may be a little nutty but I admire the guy.


Snowden Quotes/facts:


Snowden hoped to go to Iraq at 19, when he joined the Army, because he “felt like he had an obligation to help free other people from oppression.”
Snowden’s superiors couldn’t measure up to standards. “Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone,”.
Snowden was disgusted with the way Obama represented America. “It was more of a slow realization that presidents could openly lie to secure the office and then break public promises without consequence,”
Snowden, a disappointed young libertarian with security clearance blew the lid off the "lawful" intelligence billions in taxes developed to Unconstitutionally select certain Americans for possibly political reasons (as we have seen with the IRS).


I never liked the Patriot Act but it has done some good (when in the hands of better men) and I believe we'll see more and more abuse from this "LAW" that does not promote fairness or justice under the hands of "LESSOR" men in power.

[jimnyc]

Snowden himself explained what he did. Do you think he purposely left out attempts to go the legal route? What sense does that make? Why in the world would he hide the fact that he tried to do things in a legit manner, prior to leaving the country? Also, if someone in the past tried to expose something properly, and were denied for whatever reason - that hardly means the next guy is entitled to break the law.

And we're already ASSuming that people would be dead if they reported IRS issues? So that means Snowden was dead in his tracks if he tried to expose this?

I'm glad you decided to make yourself knowledgeable on the details this time at least, even if it lead you to assumptions. :)

[gabosaurus]

Shouldn't Snowden be labeled as a "disgruntled former employee who has an axe to bury" like all the Bush administration whistle blowers were?

[jimnyc]

Shouldn't Snowden be labeled as a "disgruntled former employee who has an axe to bury" like all the Bush administration whistle blowers were?

I believe disgruntled former employee refers to those shitcanned. But anyway - WHO are you referring to? My stances on things like this remain the same, as do others that I am aware of. Your comment makes little sense, or has little truth to it.

[gabosaurus]

Whistleblowers are not always fired. Some leave voluntarily. Some retire.
I am comparing the NSA whistleblowers to those of the Dubya years

[BillyBob]

I believe disgruntled former employee refers to those shitcanned. But anyway - WHO are you referring to? My stances on things like this remain the same, as do others that I am aware of. Your comment makes little sense, or has little truth to it.


Consistency is inconsistent with liberalism. No wonder she's confused.

[BillyBob]

Whistleblowers are not always fired. Some leave voluntarily. Some retire.


Some are simply paid off while others are destroyed. Clinton's rape victims are a perfect example.

[jimnyc]

Whistleblowers are not always fired. Some leave voluntarily. Some retire.
I am comparing the NSA whistleblowers to those of the Dubya years

You didn't say whistleblowers, you said disgruntled former employee.

I can only speak for myself. I condemned a lot of people that did similar in the Bush years. I remember O'neill being the most famous I discussed. He took confidential documents with him on the way out the door and apparently used them in a book. I don't give a crap who the President is. I condemn anyone doing as much back then, and I condemn it now.

Even back then I took issue with those who didn't break laws, but decided to sell a book and release all kinds of information they were privy to. I don't trust people when they stand to monetarily gain either, most of the time.

The only other person I can recall is Revelarts - and I assure you his stance on things like this has remained the same too. He was supportive of those people back then, and I know supportive of at least Manning and Snowden now.

Maybe you can be more specific, instead of trying to paint everyone the same way?

[Anton Chigurh]

This line of BS that they're not "listening to your phone calls" rings hollow when you realize the towering size of the massive information storage facility in Utah.

Aggregate data doesn't take up much space compared to images and audio-video recordings. The difference between text files and image files and audio-video files is like the difference between a cat and a human.

They need the trillions of terabytes of space in Utah not for just aggregate text files - they need it for video, audio and image files they are scraping. And collecting.

[BillyBob]

The smartest thing to do would be to unplug from the grid. No more internet or cell phones. It shouldn't be too hard, we didn't have either 20 [or so] years ago.

[aboutime]

This line of BS that they're not "listening to your phone calls" rings hollow when you realize the towering size of the massive information storage facility in Utah.

Aggregate data doesn't take up much space compared to images and audio-video recordings. The difference between text files and image files and audio-video files is like the difference between a cat and a human.

They need the trillions of terabytes of space in Utah not for just aggregate text files - they need it for video, audio and image files they are scraping. And collecting.


Anton. The size of those buildings has nothing to do with the data being recorded. More like large buildings to house Thousands of People to listen, watch, and monitor all of the personal electronic devices...like THIS INTERNET FORUM the President Insists.....nobody will be listening to here in America.

By the way. Anyone who believed Obama the other day. Also purchased a famous BRIDGE crossing the East River into Brooklyn.

[Anton Chigurh]

Anton. The size of those buildings has nothing to do with the data being recorded. More like large buildings to house Thousands of People to listen, watch, and monitor all of the personal electronic devices...like THIS INTERNET FORUM the President Insists.....nobody will be listening to here in America.It's both. The size of the buildings is necessary because of the size of the storage and the MASSIVE cooling systems it requires. The trench looking things that run the length of these buildings on the roof? MASSIVE cooling towers.

Those aren't for the room air conditioning.

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/041213_fxr_data_640.jpg



By the way. Anyone who believed Obama the other day. Also purchased a famous BRIDGE crossing the East River into Brooklyn.
I believed him immediately. He said "We're not listening" and I damn sure know that. Not him or anyone in DC is listening - this is why we have Obamacare, the auto bailouts, the stimulus, the patriot act and this current distortion of it, and the whole damn thing.

Because they are not listening. I believe ya, Barack - it's the first thing coming out of your blowhole I DO believe!:laugh:

[Anton Chigurh]

The size of those buildings has nothing to do with the data being recorded."is designed to store data on the scale of 5 exabytes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabytes)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center


Know what a exabyte is?

[Anton Chigurh]

More info and more scary - especially the "DCSNet."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_surveillance_projects#United_St ates




DCSNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCSNet): The Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) (FBI)'s point-and-click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-click) surveillance system that can perform instant wiretaps on any telecommunications device located in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_surveillance_projects#cite_note-wired.com-5)

[logroller]

"is designed to store data on the scale of 5 exabytes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabytes)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center


Know what a exabyte is?
Wasn't there a report about ten years ago that said 5 exabytes amounts to all the words ever spoken by man. It's probably a little out of date now, but SHAZAAM-- that's a lot of data.

[BillyBob]

Wasn't there a report about ten years ago that said 5 exabytes amounts to all the words ever spoken by man.


Which man? Some men have a much more limited vocabulary than others. For example, Marcus' vocabulary consists primarily of grunts, whines and sign language. The only sign I have seen him make is a little gesture with his middle finger, but that still counts!

[logroller]

Which man? Some men have a much more limited vocabulary than others. For example, Marcus' vocabulary consists primarily of grunts, whines and sign language. The only sign I have seen him make is a little gesture with his middle finger, but that still counts!
All words, as in communications (not vocabulary), ever spoken by humans throughout history. It was just an estimate, now dated, but does give some reference to the quantity of data.

[red states rule]

Shouldn't Snowden be labeled as a "disgruntled former employee who has an axe to bury" like all the Bush administration whistle blowers were?

It seems he was a PO'd liberal who was shocked Obama was expanding the Bush polices regarding national security. So he took it upon himself to tell everyone (including our enemies) what the US was doing to protect itself

[red state]

The smartest thing to do would be to unplug from the grid. No more internet or cell phones. It shouldn't be too hard, we didn't have either 20 [or so] years ago.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


I like reading your posts and agree with you much of the time but to "unplug" would be economical suicide for my wife and I. She runs a pharmaceutical information firm in Memphis and I have my own business but we are both able to work from the same office (at home) most of the time. In fact, our being plugged into the system allows us to work from most anywhere (on vacation, at business conferences or even at sports events). Our working together or from home would not have been an option 20 years ago....and neither would my ability to have clients worldwide or the ability to successfully compete with large agencies or others from other countries. Most of my clients come from OUTSIDE my area such as CA, FL, TX and even Great Britain and Australia so there would be no way for me to "unplug" without unplugging from a paycheck.


What we need to "unplug" are the liberals who feel that it is OK or in our best interests to allow Big Sis to monitor our PRIVACY or to come into our homes as they did during Katrina or the Bostom Bombing. It is wrong for the gov. to do so and it is most certainly against the Constitution. BOTTOM LINE. We will get America back when we unplug the corrupt politicians and those who would replace FREEDOM for security (a false sense of security). The (IF) factors that I've heard here for this thread and the Boston Bombing threads are from those who do not think things through properly and are content to believe what they've read.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm sure most are aware that the government didn't come out and admit they were recording and storing all of these telephone calls.

???....when did the claim change to "recording and storing" instead of collecting data about numbers?......

[jimnyc]

???....when did the claim change to "recording and storing" instead of collecting data about numbers?......

I wrote to fast back then - I meant recording the metadata and storing it on drives. With a warrant, they can cross reference numbers and such, but no recording of calls is done.

[PostmodernProphet]

just checking.....there are enough mindless rumors floating around......

I've lost track which boards I have said this, so if this is a repeat just ignore it....

I'm torn on this issue.....personally, I can't get that excited about the government having access to the same information that Google and Verizon sell to insurance salesmen and widget makers......

at the same time, I have no objection to someone reminding us that the government is doing it......so I'm not outraged by Snowden or what he said the government is doing......

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c11014320130620120100.jpg